I’ve been thinking about both personal and organizational ethics, as I’ve encountered limitations of capacity of different theories and approaches as I disentangle them. After retroactively discovering deep ethical incompatibilities. I’ve learned it’s not enough to say I value integrity, and “acting spontaneously in the right” and for the other person to effectively agree. These things need to be stress tested and it must be more cleanly understood what this boils down to for each person, no matter what one might believe based on life experience of organizations and/or harm.
My main concern is avoiding harm, addressing repair, and a generally humanizing approach which still allows for autonomy and self-responsibility, recognizing that it’s a balance – and that many approaches have limitations of their own, so a combined approach which integrates different ethical systems seems smarter to me.
I’ve read about half of these books, it’s a handy bibliography, I may add work like On Repentance and Repair by Danya Ruttenberg as it’s on my TBR list, and I’d probably still add At Personal Risk.
———————————————————————
Foundational Care Ethics
Carol Gilligan – In a Different Voice
Introduced care ethics by showing that moral maturity includes responsiveness to relationship and context, not only rule-based reasoning.
Nel Noddings – Caring
Argues that ethical obligation arises from concrete encounters and the responsibility to respond to another’s need.
Virginia Held – The Ethics of Care
Systematizes care ethics as a full moral theory applicable to both personal relationships and social institutions.
Harm, Responsibility, and Moral Repair
Margaret Urban Walker – Moral Repair
Shifts ethics from justification and intent to the obligations that arise after harm, emphasizing repair and restored trust.
Claudia Card – The Atrocity Paradigm
Centers harm rather than intention as the primary moral concern, highlighting how ethical systems can minimize victims’ experiences.
Power, Institutions, and Structural Care
Joan Tronto – Moral Boundaries / Caring Democracy
Analyzes care as a political and institutional practice shaped by power, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness.
Emmanuel Levinas – Ethics and Infinity
Grounds ethics in the irreducible responsibility that arises simply from encountering another person.
Restorative and Relational Accountability
Howard Zehr – The Little Book of Restorative Justice
Reframes justice as addressing harm by centering those affected and identifying responsibilities for repair.
John Braithwaite – Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation
Demonstrates how accountability systems can prioritize repair and prevention over punishment.
Care Ethics, Justice, and Lived Practice
bell hooks – All About Love
Defines love as an ethical practice grounded in care, accountability, responsibility, and mutual recognition.
adrienne maree brown – Emergent Strategy
Integrates care, interdependence, and systems thinking to show how ethical responsibility scales from personal to collective life.
Care-Centered Spiritual and Contemplative Traditions
Thich Nhat Hanh – Interbeing / The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching
Articulates a form of engaged spirituality in which insight deepens responsibility and compassion in action.
Christina Feldman – Compassion
Explores compassion as a disciplined ethical practice rather than a feeling, emphasizing responsiveness to suffering.
Trauma-Informed and Relational Ethics
Judith Herman – Trauma and Recovery
Demonstrates that healing and ethics both require acknowledgment, safety, and relational repair after harm.
Bessel van der Kolk – The Body Keeps the Score
Shows how ethical responsibility must account for embodied impact, not only cognitive intention.
———————————————————-
Below is a conceptual map that places care ethics thinkers, restorative justice, trauma ethics, Buddhism, and Stoicism into a shared framework of ethical principles.
This is not about ranking traditions, but about showing what moral capacities each contributes—and where limits appear.
In three layers:
- The shared ethical questions
- How each tradition answers them
- Where they complement or fail one another
I. The core ethical questions all these traditions are answering
Across philosophy, spirituality, and ethics, the same questions recur:
- Where does responsibility come from?
- What matters more: intent or impact?
- How should power affect obligation?
- What happens after harm?
- When is withdrawal ethical, and when is staying required?
- What role do emotions play in moral perception?
- How should ethics scale from individuals to institutions?
Everything below is a different answer to those questions.
II. Shared principles and how each tradition maps to them
1. Source of ethical responsibility
Care Ethics (Gilligan, Noddings, Held)
Responsibility arises from relationship and vulnerability; obligation emerges when another’s well-being depends on you.
Moral Repair (Walker, Card)
Responsibility arises from harm; once harm occurs, obligation persists regardless of intent.
Restorative Justice (Zehr, Braithwaite)
Responsibility arises from impact on others and the need to repair social trust.
Trauma Ethics (Herman, van der Kolk)
Responsibility arises from disruption to safety and agency, especially when power is involved.
Engaged Buddhism (Thich Nhat Hanh)
Responsibility arises from interbeing—the recognition that one’s actions ripple through others.
Classical Buddhism (non-relational forms)
Responsibility arises from one’s own suffering and liberation, with compassion encouraged but not structurally required.
Stoicism
Responsibility arises from internal judgment and intention; moral duty is primarily self-governance.
2. Intent vs. impact
Care Ethics
Impact matters at least as much as intent; ethical failure includes failure to respond adequately to harm.
Moral Repair
Impact supersedes intent once harm occurs.
Restorative Justice
Impact is central; intent is secondary to addressing harm.
Trauma Ethics
Impact is decisive; trauma can occur without malicious intent.
Engaged Buddhism
Intent matters, but compassionate response to suffering is required regardless.
Classical Buddhism
Suffering is often reframed as misperception; impact may be internalized.
Stoicism
Intent and judgment dominate; impact beyond control is morally neutral.
3. Power and asymmetry
Care Ethics
Power increases responsibility; greater capacity entails greater obligation.
Moral Repair
Those with power bear greater repair duties after harm.
Restorative Justice
Power shapes who must act to restore trust.
Trauma Ethics
Power differentials amplify harm and ethical obligation.
Engaged Buddhism
Awareness increases responsibility; power deepens compassion duty.
Classical Buddhism
Power is often treated as illusory or morally irrelevant.
Stoicism
Power is external; ethical responsibility remains internal.
4. Ethics after harm (repair vs. closure)
Care Ethics
Ethics continues through repair, responsiveness, and staying present.
Moral Repair
Repair is the central ethical task after harm.
Restorative Justice
Repair and prevention replace punishment or withdrawal.
Trauma Ethics
Repair requires safety, acknowledgment, and relational support.
Engaged Buddhism
Healing suffering requires continued compassionate action.
Classical Buddhism
Release and acceptance may replace repair.
Stoicism
Acceptance and internal clarity replace relational repair.
5. Withdrawal vs. staying
Care Ethics
Withdrawal is ethical only when staying would cause further harm; default is presence.
Moral Repair
Withdrawal without repair compounds harm.
Restorative Justice
Staying engaged is necessary to restore trust.
Trauma Ethics
Premature withdrawal destabilizes recovery.
Engaged Buddhism
Staying with suffering is compassionate practice.
Classical Buddhism
Withdrawal is often valorized as non-attachment.
Stoicism
Withdrawal is ethical once clarity is reached.
6. Role of emotion in ethics
Care Ethics
Emotions are moral information signaling need and harm.
Moral Repair
Moral emotions (remorse, guilt) guide repair.
Restorative Justice
Emotional acknowledgment is essential to healing.
Trauma Ethics
Emotion is evidence of impact, not weakness.
Engaged Buddhism
Mindfulness deepens emotional attunement.
Classical Buddhism
Emotion is often treated as illusion or attachment.
Stoicism
Emotion is disciplined to preserve rational judgment.
7. Scaling ethics to organizations
Care Ethics
Institutions must distribute care and responsibility structurally.
Moral Repair
Organizations bear responsibility for enabling and repairing harm.
Restorative Justice
Systems must design for repair, not just compliance.
Trauma Ethics
Institutions must prioritize safety and prevent retraumatization.
Engaged Buddhism
Collective practice carries collective responsibility.
Classical Buddhism
Often focused on individual liberation, not institutions.
Stoicism
Primarily individual; organizational ethics must be imported from elsewhere.
III. Where these traditions complement or fail one another
Where Stoicism is strong
- Emotional regulation
- Endurance under stress
- Personal integrity
- Resistance to vindictiveness
Where Stoicism fails alone
- Repair after harm
- Power-aware responsibility
- Relational accountability
- Organizational ethics
Where Buddhism strengthens Stoicism
- Compassion
- Non-reactivity
- Impermanence awareness
Where Buddhism + Stoicism together still fail
- Redistribution of responsibility
- Structural accountability
- Repair obligations
- Power asymmetry recognition
Why care ethics + restorative justice are necessary complements
They supply what neither Stoicism nor non-relational Buddhism can:
- Ethics of staying
- Ethics of repair
- Ethics of impact
- Ethics of power
- Ethics that scale beyond the self
In other words: Stoicism and Buddhism cultivate inner freedom; care ethics and restorative justice cultivate shared responsibility.
Inner freedom without shared responsibility becomes ethical contraction under stress.
Self-governance stabilizes people.
Care ethics stabilizes relationships and institutions.
Mature ethics requires both.
And onto my chosen personal ethics:
Here are five guiding ethical principles distilled from care ethics, moral repair, restorative justice, trauma-informed ethics, and the healthy uses of Buddhism and Stoicism.
They are written to be livable, not abstract.
1. Impact creates responsibility — even when intent was sincere
If my actions affect someone’s safety, dignity, or well-being, I remain ethically engaged with that impact, regardless of what I meant or knew at the time.
What this protects against: moral escape through good intentions
What it invites: accountability, humility, repair
2. Power increases obligation, not freedom
When I have greater visibility, authority, knowledge, or stability, my responsibility to protect others and reduce harm increases — it never decreases.
What this protects against: hiding behind consent or autonomy
What it invites: stewardship, restraint, care
3. Withdrawal is only ethical when it reduces harm — not when it exports it
Stepping back is ethical only if it genuinely reduces harm overall; if withdrawal shifts the burden of harm onto someone else, repair or continued presence is required.
What this protects against: abandonment framed as boundary-setting
What it invites: discernment, courage, staying when it matters
4. Repair matters more than coherence
Ethical integrity is not proven by being consistent with myself, but by being responsive to those I have affected, especially after misjudgment.
What this protects against: moral certainty without care
What it invites: listening, repair, shared reality
5. Self-regulation serves relationship — not the other way around
I use self-discipline, clarity, and spiritual practice to remain present and humane, not to withdraw from obligation or diminish another’s humanity.
What this protects against: spiritualized disengagement
What it invites: grounded compassion, resilience with connection
I aim to be steady enough to stay, humble enough to repair, and clear enough to take responsibility for the impact I have on others.